Quote:
Originally Posted by egri
Serious question, should George Washington have surrendered after his defeat in New York, or Winston Churchill have surrendered after Dunkirk? Both would have saved a lot of civilian deaths, but left their respective countries much worse off.
Putin is a liar and a thug, and his domestic critics are either dead or in jail. Any peace will only last as long as it takes him to replace his losses, then he will be on the march again. Besides, the Russians are getting taken to the woodshed. Their advance has stalled out, their generals are getting picked off like fish in a barrel, and with the muddy season about to start, they won't be going anywhere any time soon.
|
Churchill had some help coming. Not sure Zelensky does.
Washington, he had the homefield advantage, them Brits had a long boat ride across the pond, and it was a fairly even strength battle wasn't it, I don't recall numbers for each side.
This is like my little league team taking on the Yankees. Granted they are looking more like the Orioles, but still. As for taken to the Woodshed, not sure we are watching the same skirmish. Maybe they have put up more resistance then Putty expected, but I do not see the tide turning. As of now looks like they are just delaying the inevitable.